Monro paying $1.95M to settle pay-dispute class action

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — Monro Inc. agreed recently to settle an eight-year-old class-action suit related to unpaid wages and overtime for former technicians and assistant store managers, agreeing to pay $1.95 million to the plaintiffs.

Monro said in its third quarter 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it estimated the amount to be less than the legal fees and expenses it believed it likely would incur in connection with defending such matter during the next 12 months.

Monro said the settlement resulted in a reduction in third-quarter net income of 4 cents per share.

The class-action suit — Ellersick, et.al.v. Monro Muffler Brake Inc. and Monro Service Corp. — was filed originally in September 2010 by John Ellersick, David Ellersick, Travis Myles, Lewis C. Youngs Jr. and Richard Curry Jr., who described themselves as "technicians" and/or "mechanics" employed by Monro for varying lengths of time.

The plaintiffs claimed they were denied "regular, overtime and meal and rest period compensation" as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit at any time within three years prior to the filing date of the action.

The suit over time attracted more than 1,100 co-plaintiffs, according to court records. The case was heard in the U.S. District Court, Western District of New York.

Among specific charges levied by the plaintiffs were that Monro management told employees not to clock-in, clocked out employees while the employees continued to work, altered time records and did not pay employees who worked during meal and/or rest periods.

The settlement arose out of mediation the parties agreed to after a series of motions and appeals throughout 2017 regarding the federal court's granting on March 31 to decertify the class-action.

In comments to financial analysts in a recent conference call, CFO Brian D'Ambrosia said the company opted to settle the case because its analysis "led us to the conclusion that the settlement was a better amount of favorable one.

"Any litigation takes a certain amount of management's time,…and we believe that settling this matter will allow management to focus and running the company's operations and executing the initiatives previously laid out."

Legal counsel representing the plaintiffs in the case declined to comment, saying there were still technicalities to sort out. Monro said technically, the matter is still pending until the court issues its final approval of the arbitrated settlement

Letter

to the

Editor

Do you have an opinion about this story? Do you have some thoughts you'd like to share with our readers? Tire Business would love to hear from you. Email your letter to Editor Don Detore at [email protected].